Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 44 references

A geometric approach to the (generalized) Noether theorem for Hamiltonian systems on (non)-uniform q-contact manifolds

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-08 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The paper extends Noether's theorem to Hamiltonian systems with several independent dissipation channels, modeled by q-contact manifolds, and proves that in the non-uniform case an averaged 2-form governs a unique effective dissipative…

desk verdict The non-uniform admissible q-contact framework is a genuine new toolbox, but the generalized Noether theorem in Section 2 is not proved as written and appears false for q>1; fix that before publication. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.05681 v1 pith:ZRCTVUYE submitted 2026-08-06 math.SG math-phmath.MP

Manuel de León , Cristina Sardón , Xuefeng Zhao This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.SGmath-phmath.MP MSC 53C1537J0653D99
keywords q-contactmanifoldHamiltoniansystemNoethertheoremdissipatedquantitynon-uniformstructureeffectivevectorfieldelastoplasticdamagemodel
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper extends Noether's theorem to Hamiltonian systems with several independent dissipation channels, modeled by q-contact manifolds: manifolds carrying q independent 1-forms whose kernels define a horizontal distribution, while the complementary Reeb directions play the role of dissipation channels. On uniform q-contact manifolds, where all forms share the same exterior derivative, the paper proves that Hamiltonian symmetries correspond exactly to dissipated quantities, with decay rate fixed by the Reeb vector fields. For time-dependent systems it proves a generalized Noether theorem on the extended phase space: a vector field that rescales each extended contact form yields q dissipated quantities. For non-uniform structures, where the symplectic forms on the horizontal distribution differ, it shows that whenever the averaged 2-form $\Omega=\frac1q\sum_{i=1}^q d\lambda_i$ is non-degenerate there is a unique effective Hamiltonian vector field and the Noether correspondence still holds. As an application, an elastoplastic damage model with two internal variables is embedded in the non-uniform 2-contact framework, and numerical integration confirms the predicted exponential dissipation law and the associated rescaled conserved quantity.

What carries the argument

The central object is the q-contact structure $(M,\vec{\lambda}=(\lambda_1,\dots,\lambda_q),R\oplus\xi)$, where $\xi=\cap_i\ker\lambda_i$ is the horizontal distribution, $R$ the Reeb distribution spanned by $R_i$ with $\lambda_i(R_j)=\delta_{ij}$, and each $\lambda_i$ is one dissipation channel. The identity that carries the non-uniform argument is the averaged 2-form $\Omega=\frac1q\sum_i d\lambda_i$ on $\xi$; its non-degeneracy, the admissibility condition, selects a unique effective Hamiltonian vector field, and the structure endomorphisms $B_i:\xi\to\xi$ defined by $d\lambda_i(X,Y)=\omega(B_iX,Y)$ with $\omega=d\lambda_1|_\xi$ encode channel anisotropy, with averaged $\bar{B}=\frac1q\sum_i B_i$ controlling the horizontal part of the effective flow. In the extended phase space, the machinery is the collection $\lambda_i^E=\lambda_i+H\,dt$ on $M\times\mathbb{R}$, whose Lie derivatives along $X_H^t$ are $L_{X_H^t}\lambda_i^E=-\left(\sum_j R_j(H)\right)\lambda_i^E$, the formula that turns symmetry into dissipation.

What would settle it

In q-contact coordinates, take a concrete vector field $Y$ that satisfies $L_Y\lambda_i^E=\sigma_i\lambda_i^E$ but for which $[X_H^t,Y]$ is not horizontal, and compute $i_{[X_H^t,Y]}\lambda_i^E$; if this term is nonzero, then $L_{X_H^t}F_i$ acquires an extra contribution and $F_i=i_Y\lambda_i^E$ fails the dissipation equation, disproving Theorem 2.5 as stated. If every such $Y$ gives a vanishing bracket term, the theorem is confirmed.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is the q-contact Noether correspondence: on a uniform q-contact manifold, a Hamiltonian vector field $X_F$ is a Noether symmetry of $X_H$ (meaning $\{F,H\}=0$) if and only if $F=-i_{X_F}\lambda_1$ is a dissipated quantity, i.e. $X_H(F)=-F\sum_i R_i(H)$ (Theorem 2.3). For time-dependent systems on $M\times\mathbb{R}$ with extended forms $\lambda_i^E=\lambda_i+H\,dt$, the paper states the generalized Noether theorem: if $Y$ satisfies $L_Y\lambda_i^E=\sigma_i\lambda_i^E$ for $i=1,\dots,q$, then $F_i=i_Y\lambda_i^E$ are dissipated quantities along the flow of $X_H^t=X_H+\partial_t$ (Theorem 2.5). In the non-uniform setting, where the $d\lambda_i$ differ, the paper fixes a reference symplectic form $\omega=d\lambda_1|_\xi$, defines structure endomorphisms $B_i$ by $d\lambda_i(X,Y)=\omega(B_iX,Y)$, and, under the admissibility condition that $\Omega=\frac1q\sum_i d\lambda_i$ is non-degenerate on $\xi$, constructs a unique effective Hamiltonian vector field $X_H$ with $\lambda_i(X_H)=-H$ and $i_{X_H}\Omega=dH-\sum_i dH(R_i)\lambda_i$ (Theorem 3.2). With this field it proves the non-uniform Noether theorem: $\{H,F\}=0$ iff $F$ is dissipated, and $F$ is conserved iff $\{H,F\}=-F\sum_i R_i(H)$ (Theorem 3.3). The elastoplastic two-channel example realizes this construction with $R_1(H)=\mu_1$, $R_2(H)=\mu_2$, yielding $H(t)=H(0)e^{-(\mu_1+\mu_2)t}$ and conserved $I(t)=H(t)e^{(\mu_1+\mu_2)t}$.

Load-bearing premise

The generalized Noether theorem rests on the assumption that the symmetry vector field and the Hamiltonian flow commute along the contact directions, so the bracket term $i_{[X_H^t,Y]}\lambda_i^E$ vanishes; the paper asserts this without proof, and the definition of a generalized Noether symmetry does not obviously imply it.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • On a uniform q-contact manifold, every Noether symmetry of the Hamiltonian flow is equivalent to a dissipated quantity whose decay rate is $\sum_i R_i(H)$, so continuous symmetries of dissipative systems directly predict how fast their generators decay.
  • On an admissible non-uniform q-contact manifold, the effective vector field $X_H$ reduces the multi-channel system to a single dynamics, and the Hamiltonian obeys $dH/dt=-H\sum_i R_i(H)$; with constant $\mu_i=R_i(H)$ the total dissipation is the sum of the channel rates.
  • For the two-channel elastoplastic damage model, the theory forces $H(t)=H(0)e^{-(\mu_1+\mu_2)t}$ and $I(t)=H(t)e^{(\mu_1+\mu_2)t}=\text{const}$, and the reported numerical integrations agree with both to near machine precision.
  • The generalized Noether theorem outputs $q$ dissipated quantities $F_i=i_Y\lambda_i^E$ from one symmetry vector field, one per contact form, rather than a single conserved charge.
  • In the uniform limit $B_i=\mathrm{Id}_\xi$, all non-uniform constructions reduce to the uniform q-contact theory, which in turn reduces to ordinary contact Hamiltonian mechanics when $q=1$.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A direct test of Theorem 2.5 would compute the missing bracket term $i_{[X_H^t,Y]}\lambda_i^E$ in local coordinates; if it vanishes for all generalized Noether symmetries, the theorem is sound, and if not, the dissipation property should hold for symmetries satisfying the extra commutation condition.
  • The averaged-form construction suggests a general design principle: whenever several symplectic forms on one distribution average to a non-degenerate 2-form, a single effective Hamiltonian dynamics exists, which may connect this framework to other geometric settings where multiple symplectic structures coexist.
  • The exponential-rescaling identity $I(t)=H(t)e^{(\sum_i\mu_i)t}$ is not special to the two-channel example: any admissible non-uniform q-contact system with constant Reeb derivatives $R_i(H)=\mu_i$ will exhibit the same coexistence of exponential dissipation and an exactly conserved rescaled Hamiltonian, which could be checked in materials with multiple internal dissipation mechanisms.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper develops a Hamiltonian formalism for q-contact manifolds, first in the uniform case (dλ1=⋯=dλq) and then for non-uniform structures where the exterior derivatives of the contact forms differ. In the uniform setting it proves a Liouville-type theorem, a q-contact Noether theorem, and, for time-dependent systems, a generalized Noether theorem on the extended phase space. In the non-uniform setting it introduces structure endomorphisms, channel Hamiltonian vector fields, an admissibility condition on the averaged 2-form Ω, an effective Hamiltonian vector field, a non-uniform bracket, and a corresponding Noether theorem. The framework is applied to an elastoplastic damage model with two internal dissipation channels, where the effective equations are derived and numerical simulations are reported to confirm exponential dissipation of the Hamiltonian and conservation of a rescaled quantity.

Significance. If correct, the paper would provide a useful geometric framework for multi-channel dissipative systems and a concrete construction of an admissible non-uniform 2-contact structure with a plausible physical application. The coordinate computations in the R^6 example appear internally consistent, and the numerical experiments, despite limited reporting detail, support the application-specific dissipation law. However, the generalized Noether theorem (Theorem 2.5) is a headline contribution of the abstract and introduction, and it is false as stated; this is a load-bearing error that cannot be dismissed as a purely presentational issue. The non-uniform Noether theorem (Theorem 3.3) is essentially a restatement of the definition of the bracket and does not compensate for the failure of the generalized theorem.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 2.4, Theorem 2.5] The generalized Noether theorem is false as stated. Take the uniform q-contact manifold M=R^4 with coordinates (x,y,z1,z2), λ1=dz1−xdy, λ2=dz2−xdy, and H=z1. Then R1(H)=1, R2(H)=0. The vector field Y=∂z2 satisfies L_Yλ_i^E=0 for i=1,2, where λ_i^E=λ_i+Hdt, so Y is a generalized Noether symmetry by Definition 2.10. But F1=i_Yλ1^E=0 and F2=i_Yλ2^E=1. Since Σ_i R_i(H)=1, the dissipation equation (2.24) would require L_{X_t^H}F2=−F2·1=−1, while L_{X_t^H}1=0. Thus F2 is not a dissipated quantity, contradicting Theorem 2.5.
  2. [Section 2.4, proof of Theorem 2.5] The proof uses two identities that are not valid as written. First, the displayed identity L_{X_t^H}λ_i^E=−(Σ_j R_j(H))λ_i^E is incorrect for q>1: from (2.2), L_{X_H}λ_i=−Σ_j R_j(H)λ_j, so for X_t^H=X_H+∂t and λ_i^E=λ_i+Hdt one obtains L_{X_t^H}λ_i^E=−Σ_j R_j(H)λ_j^E, which is generally not a multiple of λ_i^E. Consequently i_Y(L_{X_t^H}λ_i^E)=−Σ_j R_j(H)F_j, which does not yield the claimed scalar dissipation equation. Second, the sentence 'The previous proposition implies i_[X_t^H,Y]λ_i^E=0' is a non sequitur: Proposition 2.4 only asserts that generalized Noether symmetries are closed under Lie brackets. A Cartan argument can establish the vanishing contraction when i_{X_t^H}λ_i^E=0, but this does not repair the incorrect Lie-derivative computation.
  3. [Section 2.4, construction of X_t^H] The extended vector field X_t^H is introduced via the equations i_{X_t^H}dλ_i^E=0 and i_{X_t^H}λ_i^E=0 under the stated assumption R_i(H)=0 for i=1,...,q. If these equations hold, Cartan's identity gives L_{X_t^H}λ_i^E=0, so the right-hand side of the dissipation equation (2.24) and the nonzero Lie-derivative formula used in the proof of Theorem 2.5 refer to a different vector field. The assumption R_i(H)=0 is silently dropped after the construction, leaving it unclear which dynamics the generalized Noether theorem is meant to govern.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.3] The subsection on q-general manifolds contains several typos ('mani f old', 'co f rames', 'vector f ield') and Corollary 3.2 uses an undefined integer p in the family {R_j^k | k=1,...,p}; presumably q is intended.
  2. [Section 4.2] The numerical experiments do not report the integration interval, step size, or solver tolerances, so the statements that errors are 'of order 10^-10' and 'of order 10^-8' cannot be independently assessed from the text.
  3. [Theorem 3.3] Theorem 3.3 is a direct restatement of Definition 3.7 together with the definition of the bracket (3.27); labeling it a Noether theorem may overstate its content.
  4. [References] Several key results, including Theorem 2.1 and the uniform q-contact bracket, are cited to [43] and [29], which are respectively 'To appear' and an arXiv preprint; the authors should clarify their status or include the proofs.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the generalized and non-uniform Noether theorems are derived from stated definitions; the proof gap in Theorem 2.5 is repairable, not circular.

full rationale

All central results are obtained by direct Cartan-calculus manipulations from explicitly stated definitions, rather than by fitting, renaming, or importing uniqueness conclusions. Theorem 2.5 contains a genuine proof gap: the line “The previous proposition implies i_{[X^t_H,Y]}\lambda_i^E=0” does not follow from Proposition 2.4, which only asserts that the Lie bracket of two generalized Noether symmetries is again a generalized Noether symmetry. The asserted contraction is nevertheless true by a different one-line argument: since i_{X^t_H}\lambda_i^E=0 by construction and L_Y\lambda_i^E=\sigma_i\lambda_i^E for a generalized Noether symmetry, Cartan's identity gives i_{[Y,X^t_H]}\lambda_i^E=0, hence i_{[X^t_H,Y]}\lambda_i^E=0. This is a repairable proof defect, not a circular reduction. The non-uniform effective vector field, the non-uniform bracket, and the non-uniform Noether theorem are proven from the admissibility assumption and the definitions. Theorem 3.3 is a direct algebraic consequence of the definitions of the bracket and of dissipated quantities, so it is trivial but not circular. The numerical example's exponential dissipation law is built into the chosen Hamiltonian H=...+\mu_1s_1+\mu_2s_2 together with R_i=\partial_{s_i}, so the simulation illustrates an algebraic consequence of the model rather than providing an independent empirical test; however that illustrative calculation is not used to prove any of the paper's general theorems. The cited prior work [43], [29], and [30] supplies background and the uniform Hamiltonian vector field, but the main generalized and non-uniform claims are established in the text from definitions, and no load-bearing argument reduces to an unverified self-citation.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central theorems rest primarily on standard q-contact geometry and on cited results by the same research group ([43], [29]). The main unforced assumption is the hidden commutation condition in Theorem 2.5. The numerical model introduces hand-chosen parameters, but they are illustrative rather than fitted.

free parameters (1)
  • Model parameters m, k, k1, k2, κ, μ1, μ2, c1, c2 = m=1, k=1, k1=0.8, k2=1.2, κ=0.3, μ1=0.15, μ2=0.25, c1=2, c2=0.5
    Chosen by hand for the numerical example; they are not fitted to data and do not affect the main theorems. μ1, μ2 set the decay rate; c1, c2 determine the non-uniform geometry.
assumptions (6)
  • standard math Existence of Reeb vector fields R_i with λ_i(R_j)=δ_ij (Proposition 2.1, cited from [3])
    It is used throughout to decompose vector fields and define Hamiltonian dynamics.
  • standard math Darboux coordinates for uniform q-contact manifolds (λ_i=dz_i - x^a dy_a, cited from [5])
    It is used to write local Hamiltonian equations and transformations in Section 2.
  • domain assumption Uniform q-contact Hamiltonian vector field uniqueness and bracket (Theorem 2.1 and Definition 2.5, cited from [43])
    The paper builds Section 2 on these cited results instead of reproving them.
  • domain assumption In the extended time-dependent setting, R_i(H)=0 (stated before the extended equations)
    It is used to define the extended forms and the rescaled evolution; it is not needed for the autonomous theory.
  • ad hoc to paper The commutation identity i_{[X^t_H,Y]}λ_i^E=0 in the proof of Theorem 2.5
    This is the unjustified premise that breaks the generalized Noether theorem; it is not implied by Definition 2.10 or Proposition 2.4.
  • domain assumption Admissibility of the averaged 2-form Ω on the horizontal distribution (non-uniform Section 3)
    It is an explicit assumption required for the existence of a unique effective Hamiltonian vector field.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A geometric approach to the (generalized) Noether theorem for Hamiltonian systems on (non)-uniform q-contact manifolds." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZRCTVUYE

@misc{pith2026260805681,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A geometric approach to the (generalized) Noether theorem for Hamiltonian systems on (non)-uniform q-contact manifolds},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZRCTVUYE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.05681}
}
read the original abstract

In this paper, we develop a unified Hamiltonian framework for dynamical systems with multiple independent dissipation channels based on q-contact geometry. As an application, we embed an elastoplastic damage model with two internal variables into the non-uniform 2-contact framework, explicitly construct the underlying geometric structure, derive the effective equations of motion, and validate the theoretical predictions through numerical simulations, which confirm the exponential dissipation law and the associated rescaled conserved quantity.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.05681 by the authors.

Figure 4
Figure 4. shows the numerical evolution of the Hamiltonian together with the theoretical [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p032_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4.1
Figure 4.1. Top: comparison between the numerical Hamiltonian [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p033_4_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. illustrates the behaviour of the rescaled quantity [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p034_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4.2
Figure 4.2. Figure 4.2: Top: evolution of the rescaled quantity I(t) = H(t)e (µ1+µ2)t . The dashed line represents the initial value I(0). Bottom: conservation error EI(t) = I(t)− I(0). The variation remains extremely small throughout the simulation interval. 5. Conclusions In this work, we…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

44 extracted references · 28 canonical work pages

  1. [43]

    X. F. Zhao and Yong Li, Complete Integrability inq-Contact Hamiltonian Systems, Bull. Sci. math. (To appear)

    work page

  2. [29]

    M. Leok, C. Sardón and X. Zhao, Noether-Type Theorems and the Generalized Herglotz Principle inq-Contact Geometry, arXiv:2604.06488 (2026)

    work page Pith review arXiv 2026

  3. [1]

    Aldaya and J

    V . Aldaya and J. A. de Azcárraga, Vector bundles, rth order Noether invariants and canoni- cal symmetries in Lagrangian field theory, J. Math. Phys. 19, 1876–1880, (1978-09-01)

    1978

  4. [2]

    Aldaya and J

    V . Aldaya and J. A. de Azcárraga, Geometric formulation of classical mechanics and field theory, Riv. Nuovo Cim. 3, 1–66, (1980-10)

    1980

  5. [3]

    Almeida, Contact Anosov actions with smooth invariant bundles

    U. Almeida, Contact Anosov actions with smooth invariant bundles. PhD thesis, Universi- dade de S˜ao Paulo, (2018)

    work page 2018

  6. [4]

    V . I. Arnold. Mathematical Methods of Classical Mechanics, Springer, New York, 2nd ed edition, (1997). 36

    work page 1997

  7. [5]

    D. E. Blair, L. Di Terlizzi, and J. Konderak, A Darboux theorem for generalized contact- manifolds, Note Mat. 26, 147–152, (2006)

    work page 2006

  8. [6]

    Bravetti, Contact geometry and thermodynamics, Int

    A. Bravetti, Contact geometry and thermodynamics, Int. J. Geom. Methods Mod. Phys. 16, (2018)

    work page 2018

Show all 44 references
  1. [7]

    Bravetti, M

    A. Bravetti, M. de León, J. C. Marrero and E. Padrón, Invariant measures for contact Hamil- tonian systems: symplectic sandwiches with contact bread, J. Phys. A 53, no. 45, 455205, (2020)

    2020

  2. [8]

    Cantrijn and W

    F. Cantrijn and W. Sarlet, Note on symmetries and invariants for second-order ordinary differential equations, Phys. Lett. A. 77, 404–406, (1980)

    1980

  3. [9]

    J. F. Cari˜nena, J. Fernández-Nú˜nez and E. Martinez, A geometric approach to Noether’s second theorem in time-dependent Lagrangian mechanics, Lett. Math. Phys. 23, 51–63, (1991)

    1991

  4. [10]

    J. F. Cari˜nena and M. F. Ra˜nada, Noether’s theorem for singular Lagrangians, Lett. Math. Phys. 15, 305–311, (1988)

    1988

  5. [11]

    Cariglia, C

    M. Cariglia, C. Duval, G. W. Gibbons and P. A. Horvathy, Eisenhart lifts and symmetries of time-dependent systems, Ann. Phys. 373, 631–654, (2016)

    2016

  6. [12]

    F. M. Ciaglia, H. Cruz, and G. Marmo, Contact manifolds and dissipation, classical and quantum, Ann. Physics. 398, 159–179, (2018)

    2018

  7. [13]

    Grácia, J

    X. Grácia, J. M. Pons, N. Román-Roy, Higher-order Lagrangian systems: Geometric struc- tures, dynamics and constraints, J. Math. Phys. 32, 2744–2763, (1991)

    1991

  8. [14]

    Grácia, J

    X. Grácia, J. M. Pons, N. Román-Roy, Higher-order conditions for singular Lagrangian systems, J. Phys. A: Math. Gen., 25 (1992), 1981–2004

    1992

  9. [15]

    Sur les matériaux standards généralisés,

    B. Halphen and Q. S. Nguyen, “Sur les matériaux standards généralisés,”Journal de Mé- canique, vol. 14, pp. 39–63, 1975

    1975

  10. [16]

    Gaset, J.Grácia, X

    de León, M. Gaset, J.Grácia, X. Mu˜nnoz-Lecanda and M. C. Rivas, Time dependent contact mechanics, Monatsh. Math. 201, 1149–1183, (2023)

    2023

  11. [17]

    de León and J

    M. de León and J. Bajo, A geometric description of some thermodynamical systems. J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 58. (2025)

    2025

  12. [18]

    de León and D

    M. de León and D. Martín de Diego, Classification of symmetries for higher order La- grangian systems, Extracta Math. 9, 32–36, (1994)

    1994

  13. [19]

    de León and P

    M. de León and P. R. Rodrigues, Methods of Differential Geometry in Analytical Mechan- ics, Elsevier, (2011)

    2011

  14. [20]

    Finamore, Contact foliations and generalised Weinstein conjectures

    D. Finamore, Contact foliations and generalised Weinstein conjectures. Ann. Global Anal. Geom. 65, (2024)

    2024

  15. [21]

    Finamore, Quasiconformal contact foliations

    D. Finamore, Quasiconformal contact foliations. Math. Ann. 389, 1575–1598, (2024). 37

    2024

  16. [22]

    Herczeg and A

    G. Herczeg and A. Waldron, Contact Geometry and Quantum Mechanics, Phys. Lett. B. 781, (2018)

    2018

  17. [23]

    Hooft, Trans-Planckian particles and the quantization of time, Class

    G. Hooft, Trans-Planckian particles and the quantization of time, Class. Quan- tum Gravity. 16, 395–405, (1999)

    1999

  18. [24]

    H. V . Lˆe,Y .-G. Oh, A. G. Tortorella and L. Vitagliano, Deformations of coisotropic sub- manifolds in Jacobi manifolds, I. Symplectic Geom. 16, 1051-1116, (2018)

    2018

  19. [25]

    A. L. Kholodenko, Applications of Contact Geometry and Topology in Physics. World Scientific, 2013

    2013

  20. [26]

    Lemaitre and J.-L

    J. Lemaitre and J.-L. Chaboche,Mechanics of Solid Materials, Cambridge University Press, 1990

    1990

  21. [27]

    de León, J

    M. de León, J. Gaset, X. Gràcia, M. C. Muñoz-Lecanda and X. Rivas, Time-dependent contact mechanics, Monatsh. Math. 201, no. 4, 1149–1183, (2023)

    2023

  22. [28]

    de León, M

    M. de León, M. Salgado and S. Vilariño,Methods of Differential Geometry in Classical Field Theories. k-Symplectic and k-Cosymplectic Approaches, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., Hackensack, NJ, (2016)

    2016

  23. [30]

    M. Leok, C. Sardón and X. Zhao, Integration on q-cosymplectic manifolds, J. Nonlinear Sci. 36, (2026)

    2026

  24. [31]

    Q. Liu, P. J. Torres, C. Wang, Contact Hamiltonian dynamics: variational principles, invari- ants, completeness and periodic behaviour, Ann. Phys. 395, 26–44, (2018)

    2018

  25. [32]

    Loose, Reduction in contact geometry, J

    F. Loose, Reduction in contact geometry, J. Lie Theory. 11, 9-22, (2001)

    2001

  26. [33]

    G. A. Maugin,The Thermomechanics of Plasticity and Fracture, Cambridge University Press, 1992

    1992

  27. [34]

    Pérez, Álvarez, Symmetries and dissipation laws on contact systems, Mediterr

    J. Pérez, Álvarez, Symmetries and dissipation laws on contact systems, Mediterr. J. Math. 151, 24 pp, (2024)

    2024

  28. [35]

    Prince, Toward a classification of dynamical symmetries in classical mechanics, Bull

    G. Prince, Toward a classification of dynamical symmetries in classical mechanics, Bull. Aust. Math. Soc. 27, 53–71, (1983)

    1983

  29. [36]

    P. D. Prieto-Martínez and N. Román-Roy, Lagrangian–Hamiltonian unified formalism for autonomous higher-order dynamical systems, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 44, (2011)

    2011

  30. [37]

    P. D. Prieto-Martínez and N. Román-Roy, Unified formalism for higher-order non- autonomous dynam ical systems, J. Math. Phys. 53 (2012)

    2012

  31. [38]

    Prince, A complete classification of dynamical symmetries in classical mechanics, Bull

    G. Prince, A complete classification of dynamical symmetries in classical mechanics, Bull. Aust. Math. Soc. 32, 299–308, (1985)

    1985

  32. [39]

    Prinz, Gauge symmetries and renormalization, Math

    D. Prinz, Gauge symmetries and renormalization, Math. Phys. Anal. Geom. 25, (2022). 38

    2022

  33. [40]

    Sarlet and F

    W. Sarlet and F. Cantrijn, Generalizations of Noether’s theorem in classical mechanics, SIAM Rev. 23, 467–494, (1981-10)

    1981

  34. [41]

    Willett, Contact reduction, Trans

    C. Willett, Contact reduction, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 354, 4245-4260, (2002)

    2002

  35. [42]

    Yano and S

    K.-o. Yano and S. Ishihara, Tangent and Cotangent Bundles: Differential Geometry, in: Pure and Applied Mathematics, 16, Dekker, 1973

    1973

  36. [44]

    X. F. Zhao and Y . Li, Conserved Quantities, Symmetries of (Almost-)Hamiltonian and Lagrangian Systems, J. Geom. Anal. 35, no. 9, Paper No. 268, (2025). 39

    2025

Pith tools

Reviewed August 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.